As I searched myself deeper,
the necessity for changes both internal and external began to grow on me.
As soon as, or even before, I made alterations in my expenses and my way
of living, I began to make changes in my diet. I saw that the writers on
vegetarianism had examined the question very minutely, attacking it in
its religious, scientific, practical, and medial aspects. Ethically they
had arrived at the conclusion that man's supremacy over the lower animals
meant not that the former should prey upon the latter, but that the higher
should protect the lower, and that there should be mutual aid between the
two, as between man and man. They had also brought out the truth that man
eats not for enjoyment but to live. And some of them accordingly suggested,
and effected in their lives, abstention not only from flesh-meat but from
eggs and milk. Scientifically some had concluded that man's physical structure
showed that he was not meant to be a cooking but a frugivorous animal,
that he could take only his mother's milk and, as soon as he had teeth,
should begin to take solid foods. Medically they had suggested the rejection
of all spices and condiments. According to the practical and economic argument,
they had demonstrated that a vegetarian diet was the least expensive. All
these considerations had their effect on me, and I came across vegetarians
of all these types in vegetarian restaurants. There was a Vegetarian Society
in England with a weekly journal of its own. I subscribed to the weekly,
joined the society, and very shortly found myself on the Executive Committee.
Here I came in contact with those who were regarded as pillars of vegetarianism,
and began my own experiments in dietetics.

I stopped taking the sweets
and condiments I had got from home. The mind having taken a different turn,
the fondness for condiments wore away, and I now relished the boiled spinach
which in Richmond tasted insipid, cooked without condiments. Many such
experiments taught me that the real seat of taste was not the tongue but
the mind.

The economic consideration was
of course constantly before me. There was in those days a body of opinion
which regarded tea and coffee as harmful and favoured cocoa. And as I was
convinced that one should eat only articles that sustained the body, I
gave up tea and coffee as a rule, and substituted cocoa.

There were two divisions in
the restaurants I used to visit. One division, which was patronized by
fairly well-to-do people, provided any number of courses from which one
chose and paid for a la carte, each dinner thus costing from one
to two shillings. The other division produced six-penny dinners of three
courses with a slice of bread. In my days of strict frugality I usually
dined in the second division.

There were many minor experiments
going on along with the main one; as for example, giving up starchy foods
at one time, living on bread and fruit alone at another, and once living
on cheese, milk, and eggs. This last experiment is worth noting. It lasted
not even a fortnight. The reformer who advocated starchless food had spoken
highly of eggs, and held that eggs were not meat. It was apparent that
there was no injury done to living creatures in taking eggs. I was taken
in by this plea, and took eggs in spite of my vow. But the lapse was momentary.
I had no business to put a new interpretation on the vow. The interpretation
of my mother who administered the vow was there for me. I knew that her
definition of meat included eggs. And as soon as I saw the true import
of the vow I gave up eggs and the experiment alike.

There is a nice [=subtle] point
underlying the argument, and worth noting. I came across three definitions
of meat in England. According to the first, meat denoted only the flesh
of birds and beasts. Vegetarians who accepted that definition abjured the
flesh of birds and beasts, but ate fish, not to mention eggs. According
to the second definition, meat meant flesh of all living creatures. So
fish was here out of the question, but eggs were allowed. The third definition
included under meat the flesh of living beings, as well as all their products,
thus covering eggs and milk alike. If I accepted the first definition,
I could take not only eggs, but fish also. But I was convinced that my
mother's definition was the definition binding on me. If, therefore, I
would observe the vow I had taken, I must abjure eggs. I therefore did
so. This was a hardship, inasmuch as inquiry showed that even in vegetarian
restaurants many courses used to contain eggs. This meant that unless I
knew what was what, I had to go through the awkward process of ascertaining
whether a particular course contained eggs or no, for many puddings and
cakes were not free from them. But though the revelation of my duty caused
this difficulty, it simplified my food. The simplification in its turn
brought me annoyance, in that I had to give up several dishes I had come
to relish. These difficulties were only passing, for the strict observance
of the vow produced an inward relish distinctly more healthy, delicate,
and permanent.

The real ordeal, however, was
still to come, and that was in respect of the other vow. But who dare harm
whom God protects?

A few observations about the
interpretation of vows or pledges may not be out of place here. Interpretation
of pledges has been a fruitful source of strife all the world over. No
matter how explicit the pledge, people will turn and twist the text to
suit their own purposes. They are to be met with among all classes of society,
from the rich down to the poor, from the prince down to the peasant. Selfishness
turns them blind, and by a use of the ambiguous middle they deceive themselves
and seek to deceive the world and God. One golden rule is to accept the
interpretation honestly put on the pledge by the party administering it.
Another is to accept the interpretation of the weaker party, where there
are two interpretations possible. Rejection of these two rules gives rise
to strife and iniquity, which are rooted in untruthfulness. He who seeks
truth alone easily follows the golden rule. He need not seek learned advice
for interpretation. My mother's interpretation of meat was, according to
the golden rule, the only true one for me, and not the one my wider experience
or my pride of better knowledge might have taught me.

My experiments in England were
conducted from the point of view of economy and hygiene. The religious
aspect of the question was not considered until I went to South Africa,
where I undertook strenuous experiments which will be narrated later. The
seed, however, for all of them was sown in England.

A convert's enthusiasm for his
new religion is greater than that of a person who is born in it. Vegetarianism
was then a new cult in England, and likewise for me, because, as we have
seen, I had gone there a convinced meat-eater, and was intellectually converted
to vegetarianism later. Full of the neophyte's zeal for vegetarianism,
I decided to start a vegetarian club in my locality, Bayswater. I invited
Sir Edwin Arnold, who lived there, to be Vice-President. Dr. Oldfield,
who was Editor of The Vegetarian, became President. I myself became
the Secretary. The club went well for a while, but came to an end in the
course of a few months. For I left the locality, according to my custom
of moving from place to place periodically. But this brief and modest experience
gave me some little training in organizing and conducting institutions.